TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [538]  1 ... 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 ... 22

Misused (new crowner 12/2/13): Necessary Drawback get usage counts

Well, that's good. Still makes me wonder who's voting "yea" on the one by "nay" on the other.
 
Someone who agrees with the idea of completion if the redefinition occurs, but doesn't think the redefinition solves anything. That's what I would mean by voting that way.

I'm more concerned with what descriptions we need to come up with to match the previous definitions.
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
 378 Native Jovian, Thu, 10th Oct '13 1:01:11 PM from Orlando, Florida
Io vs Jupiter
Options are at 16:6, 13:8, and 4:12, which means that in the past three days, the only change has been that one person switched their vote from up to down on redefining (it went from 14:7 to 13:8).

Can we call this yet?
And in the past four days, two people voted against the rename for the four tropes. (13:6 to 13:8).

Is that stable?
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
 380 Troacctid, Thu, 10th Oct '13 3:29:08 PM from California
Regardless of the state of the crowner, there currently isn't a clear consensus anyway.
Rhymes with "Protracted."
...can still bite
I'm sort of confused about who is voting "yea" on starting two new tropes to cover the missing strength / weakness pairings but "nay" on redefining each trope in the family as one strength / one weakness. It seems to me that the one is sort of contingent on the other. It doesn't really make sense to start a "strong defense / weak speed" trope if Mighty Glacier is still defined as "strong offense / strong defense / weak speed, " for example.

I thought the "missing +Attribute and -Attribute pairing" referred to "strong speed / weak offense". That's the only trope that's actually missing.

edited 10th Oct '13 7:04:37 PM by shiro_okami

 382 Native Jovian, Fri, 11th Oct '13 1:57:30 AM from Orlando, Florida
Io vs Jupiter
[up][up]If the crowner is showing a consensus (positive at an almost 3:1 margin in one case and almost 2:1 in the other), then how is there no consensus regardless of the crowner?

[up]The two that are missing are +Speed -Attack and +Defense -Speed. What we currently have, if we switch definitions to +One -Another, looks like this:
Posting for the record that the current crowner is at 17:6, 14:8, 4:13 at the time of this posting.

It seems like the first and third propositions have a clear consensus for and against respectively, and the only proposition that can be considered at all controversial is the one about redefining the trope family to one strength and one weakness apiece.

So let's focus on that one. Does anyone have any arguments they'd like to state that haven't already been covered ten pages ago?

The way I see it,

Pros:
  • Makes the tropes simple and easy-to-understand.
  • Makes their relationships to one another and to the supertrope of Necessary Drawback clear.
  • The above two points will prevent misuse in the long run.
  • We won't be constantly shooting down a lot of misguided YKTT Ws proposing new combinations of Attack / Defense / Speed.
  • Because of the above, tropes in the family won't be in danger of retroactive redefinition due to the introduction of new tropes.
  • It requires a relatively small amount of redefinition because the majority of the existing tropes already function in more or less that way anyway.

Cons:
  • Splitting Mighty Glacier will take some work.
  • Searching down and correcting bad examples and wicks will take some work.
  • There is likely to be some further misuse in the short term as tropers get used to the new definitions, especially of Mighty Glacier.

Of course, the latter two cons are likely to be the case to some extent no matter how we handle things, and I think this solution ameliorates them at least as well as any other we've considered.

Did I miss anything?
 
...can still bite
  • Makes the tropes simple and easy-to-understand.
  • Makes their relationships to one another and to the supertrope of Necessary Drawback clear.
  • The above two points will prevent misuse in the long run.

Aren't the tropes like this already? The only trope that is unclear is Stone Wall, and that is because of the name, not because of how many attributes it has.

  • It requires a relatively small amount of redefinition because the majority of the existing tropes already function in more or less that way anyway.

As long as we're not changing the terminology, then yes. Remember, the Mighty Glacier and Fragile Speedster tropes are currently defined using the terms "strength" and "durability/toughness", not "attack" and "defense" like everyone has been referring to. Going back to the prior terminology would introduce a completely different dynamic that could make the tropes better or worse.

edited 11th Oct '13 4:05:34 PM by shiro_okami

it's caused by there actually being missing trope combinations, which are covered by the other crowner
That one is contingent upon the other option. We do not create new tropes if the redefinition for all four tropes do not pass.

We don't create them, because there's too many combinations that could be created. Keep in mind that previous tropes that were getting created in YKTTW were retroactively redefining the four present tropes.

edit: For example, Fragile speedster is currently -Def, +Speed, a previous YKTTW was redefining it to +Speed, -Def, -Atk. Many of the wicks and examples may still bear the marks of the trope being redefined that way.

edited 11th Oct '13 4:06:16 PM by crazysamaritan

Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
...can still bite
I think we should make a +Speed -Attack trope irregardless of whether that other crowner passes or not (contingent on actually finding examples for it). The existence of such a trope has nothing to do with Mighty Glacier getting redefined or split. Actually having such a trope would have likely negated that instance of YKTTW redefining you mentioned.

edited 11th Oct '13 4:11:36 PM by shiro_okami

Perhaps, but that's an option we can pursue later, if we have to. Right now, we're collecting ideas on what to rename Stone Wall, and deciding if the four tropes need redefining.

If the movement behind the previous YKTTW had finished, we would have these three tropes:
  1. +Power, -Tough, -Move
  2. +Move, -Tough, -Power
  3. +Tough, -Power, -Move
then these four...
  1. +Power, +Tough, -Move
  2. +Power, +Move, -Tough
  3. +Move, +Tough, -Power
  4. +Move, +Power, -Tough
and we would still be missing these tropes, because they'd all been redefined, or never existed:
  • +Move, -Tough
  • +Power, -Tough
  • +Power, -Move
  • +Tough, -Move
  • +Tough, -Power
  • +Move, -Power
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
[up][up][up][up]

The language in the trope description may describe them in such terms, but in practice, tropers are treating them as though "strength" were a subset of "attack / offense" and "durability" were a subset of "defense." It would take a lot more work to root out all the examples that count as "attack" but not "strength" and "defense" but not "durability, " and once we were done we'd still be constantly stamping out that kind of use.

Tropers seem to have a need for Necessary Drawback tropes broad enough to encompass forms of offense beyond muscular strength and forms of defense beyond durable armor. It seems like a pretty clean solution to officially define the tropes we already have in such a way as to encompass the use tropers are already making of them, especially since it's really not all that far off from the current definitions as written.
 
It might be worth rooting out issues where Defense and Durability do not match up. That should help cut down on misuse by numbers, instead of usage by character.
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
...can still bite
Tropers seem to have a need for Necessary Drawback tropes broad enough to encompass forms of offense beyond muscular strength and forms of defense beyond durable armor. It seems like a pretty clean solution to officially define the tropes we already have in such a way as to encompass the use tropers are already making of them, especially since it's really not all that far off from the current definitions as written.

The reason I bring that point up is that redefining the tropes according to "strength" and "durability" was decided in the last TRS thread because the terms "attack" and "defense" were too vague. At that time, there was no consensus as to what those terms consisted of, especially when compared to "speed"; now that there is, going back to the original terminology might work. But either way, broadening the definition of the tropes could allow them to be used in more ways but also open them up to misuse as well.

edited 11th Oct '13 7:27:29 PM by shiro_okami

 391 Native Jovian, Fri, 11th Oct '13 9:55:11 PM from Orlando, Florida
Io vs Jupiter
Why not use "offense" and "defense"? That's really the heart of the tropes, after all. You can call it attack, strength, power, or whatever, but you're still talking about "ability to deal damage to enemy targets". Similarly, you can call it toughness, durability, armor, etc but it boils down to "ability to survive damage dealt by the enemy". I think "offense" and "defense" are the best, most succinct terminology we're going to find for those two concepts — they're neither too broad nor too narrow, and they don't carry any baggage we don't want to avoid.

Edit — crowner options currently at 18:6 (3:1), 15:8 (1.88:1), and 4:14.

edited 11th Oct '13 9:56:55 PM by NativeJovian

Offense still has the DPS issue. But few of the suggestions have avoided that.

Defense, I mentioned, isn't strictly the same as durability. I'd be more comfortable with Offense, Durability, and Speed.
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
 393 Native Jovian, Sat, 12th Oct '13 2:08:49 PM from Orlando, Florida
Io vs Jupiter
You'll have to explain the distinction you're making between "defense" and "durability". The point is that it doesn't matter whether they're Made of Iron, use powerful Deflector Shields, have a Healing Factor, or whatever — it all falls under the umbrella of "defensive abilities".
Good Deflector Shields, but the character can still only take one hit before going down. It was something I was convinced to earlier in this thread.
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
 395 Native Jovian, Sat, 12th Oct '13 10:32:49 PM from Orlando, Florida
Io vs Jupiter
Why does it make a difference where their ability to take punishment comes from? Whether they're a Barrier Warrior, have Nigh-Invulnerability, a Healing Factor, or whatever, the point is the same — they're hard to hurt in any meaningful way.
Using a fighting game as an example: character A is able to block attacks completely, but only when they're blocking. If they aren't blocking, it takes five punches to K.O. them. Most characters can take twenty punches, but take Scratch Damage whenever they block.

Is that a character with high durability, or a high defense stat?
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
 397 Septimus Heap, Sun, 13th Oct '13 6:36:59 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Puʻu ʻŌʻō
I ought to reiterate that we ought not to treat these tropes like a stat combo.

That sounds like high durability for me.

 398 Native Jovian, Sun, 13th Oct '13 2:47:27 PM from Orlando, Florida
Io vs Jupiter
[up][up]You tell me, you're the one saying they're different things. I'm saying that it's not worth making the distinction — if it's a character capable of surviving a lot of attacks for whatever reason, then it'd count for the purposes of these tropes.
...can still bite
Why not use "offense" and "defense"? That's really the heart of the tropes, after all. You can call it attack, strength, power, or whatever, but you're still talking about "ability to deal damage to enemy targets". Similarly, you can call it toughness, durability, armor, etc but it boils down to "ability to survive damage dealt by the enemy". I think "offense" and "defense" are the best, most succinct terminology we're going to find for those two concepts they're neither too broad nor too narrow, and they don't carry any baggage we don't want to avoid.

Either you didn't read my post or you completely ignored what it said. If they were really the best terminology then the tropes would be using that terminology right now. And I guess you have already forgotten the discussions and arguments we had on this very thread on exactly how to define those terms, not to mention that there were arguments and discussions on how to define them on the last round of threads. I disagree with you; there is a possibility that these terms are too vague. And even though we've decided on how to define them, those definitions are still untested as to whether they will prevent misuse or not.

...can still bite
That sounds like high durability for me.

No, it's not. Durability/toughness only refers to the ability to withstand damage after an attack hits its intended mark. Blocking is the ability to withstand damage by negating some or all of the attack force before it hits its intended mark. So it would not count as "durability", but it would count as "defense".

edited 13th Oct '13 6:00:22 PM by shiro_okami

Page Action: Necessary Drawback
28th Nov '13 7:55:40 PM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
The specialized character tropes have problems evidenced by wick checks stretching back to over three years ago. The problem, it is always agreed, is a shifting definition.

What is misuse in one year is correct use the next, and often TRS threads are unresolved or end with a redefinition that does nothing to solve the issue. The mixed definitions have appeared in the definitions of other tropes, making it almost impossible to tell what any one trope should be defined as anymore. Everyone has their own opinions, of course.

The question that is always missing from crowners, however, is "How many specific tropes do we need?". So, the options below are listing NONE of the current trope names. Instead, we are voting on definitions we need to keep.
Total posts: 538
 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15
16
17 18 19 20 21 ... 22


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy